There are many studies done proving that Finasteride is harmful in many other ways besides an increase in likelihood of diabetes. You've made assumptions of the intellectual capabilities of the people who have experienced side effects that they aren't capable of seeing through fact or fiction, which is false. So you really believe from the millions of people who have used Finasteride and had side effects that none of those people can understand medical and statistic information?
There are many people who not only are in the field or medicine or that studied stats, but many who have done studies in courses, degrees, etc or just being well read that helped them understand such information. People are not limited to their qualifications. Just like how very few doctors actually know about a lot of things, even though they are medical professionals. Education is not a true measure of intelligence.
There's many intelligent and well educated people in this very thread talking about how bad the side effects are of Finasteride and have presented many studies, and some were not even added as yet.
Furthermore, lack of studies/high cost studies does not necessarily mean lack of truth. Not everyone has the funding for high cost studies. But the fact that many many people have reported side effects from Finasteride, in addition to many proper studies and even verified Medical Doctors on Twitter confessing and discussing with other verified doctors on Twitter about how often their patients who use Finasteride experience side effects are very telling, there's a lot more that Big Pharma would like to be kept a secret.
But yes i agree with you, most MD's are clueless about endocrinology, hair and hairloss, including alternative treatments.
Well you're quite adept at shoving words into my mouth.
First, I never implied that diabetes was the only harmful potential side effect of finasteride. I used it as an example, hence me saying "some information".
Second, I never implied that all of the people making claims about the side effects of finasteride were unintelligent. Clearly that's not the case.
Third, low quality studies do not rule out finasteride as a potential association for certain side effects, however, they don't prove anything either. My point was that people use these studies as direct evidence for a causal link, which is an erroneous interpretation of the information.
Foruth, I'm not implying that people outside of medicine or statistics are incapable of understanding scientific articles around pharmaceuticals, simply that they are less likely to be able to. Obviously there's people outside of those fields who can interpret statistics.
You reference "many studies". My point wasn't that all of these studies are not statistically meaningful, only that some of them are. It's fine to present information that doesn't have as much statistical relevance as other information, as long as it is made clear that this is the case. In a lot of instances I've seen where such information has been presented, that hasn't been done.
